By Chris Odinaka Nwedo
Principally Africa’s socio-political problems are orchestrated by sudden stunt of the progressive advancement to qualitative or productive politics. There is demonstrable degeneration in adaptations to constitutional democracy after intense struggles that ended in political independence. Paradoxically, it is the champions of the struggles for emancipation that turned round to enslave the folks by introduction of one party totalitarian states where they made themselves irreproachable and uncontrollable in the aspirations to seize and hold the political power over and against national collective interest. The political, social and economic atmospheres in most former colonial states are agonizingly depreciatory to the point that there is nostalgia for imperial era.
It is unconstructive that many African states have spiralled double times way from parts of authentic political aspirations and approximately into deep self-inflicted lawlessness. The most popular political trend currently is totalitarian rule by an institutionalized oligarchy where elections are not meant for change of unproductive governance but for its legitimisation. This means of legitimating rogue leaders and political tyrants has been incredibly successful in dozens of the states. Astonishingly, however, the derogatory trend had a setback in the Gambia where Yahya Jammeh was ousted through polls and efforts to annul and reorder fresh poll were unsuccessful due overwhelming pressures on him to step aside.
The dictator had strategies to dominate and rule perennially by “…changing the rules and electoral laws to open up holes in the electoral system that could make it easy for him to win the worst of seemingly contested elections.1 Prior to the election in 2016 that humiliated Jammeh, most political pundits were already convinced that the dictator will win the election with landslide but “not through the popular choice but through grand schemes blatantly pioneered by the National Assembly where the dictator controls with absolute majority and what appears like a lack of fighting bones among the opposition to defiantly oppose and combat the open fraud in the electoral system.2
The trend again failed in Ivory Coast where the then incumbent, Laurent Gbagbo, was flabbergasted by defeat in a supposedly free, fair and credible presidential election. The purported turning round of the unfavourable result to favour the incumbent incited protestation from the main challenger, and constituted the main structural obstacle to deepening democratic rule in the country and the leadership vacuum created in the period of the disagreement was latitude to violence and unrest. The disputed result costs the nation again of untimely death of hundreds of Ivoirians and destruction of billions of dollars worth of properties and time. The election in Ivory Coast that was basically viewed as the last healing balm for a long fractured country then appeared to add to the afflictions of the vulnerable Ivoirians. An opportunity for a competitive political process that could help the nation build a wider reach for accommodative politics of fair play was apparently smashed by injudicious political choices of the nation’s self-gratifying political class ‘who allowed themselves to be ceased by the Africa’s durable political cankerworm of ethnic chauvinism.8 Against baits for compromise and reconciliation the then president, Gbagbo, obstinately held on to his claims of repeated victories and locked himself in presidential palace as his soldiers were out there fighting to silence the opposition groups. According to a commentator, Gbagbo had become irrationally defiant and was…no longer capable of making sound judgment either of his capacity to hold on or his capacity to defeat his increasingly numerous enemies. He had become so inured to the reality that hole up in the presidential palace, and surrounded by UN, French and his rival’s republican forces, he expected the tide of the battle to turn somewhere down the line to fetch him victory.3 Gbagbo’s stubborn will and self-destructive stance ended ‘melodramatically as he was arrested in his bed sparsely clad. Humiliation has now needlessly came upon him.4
Eventually, the former Ivorian ‘smart’ leader was disparaged, caricatured in International Criminal Court in Hague and assaulted with punches and blows on streets by folks who were aggrieved by the former president’s indiscretion. The Gbagbo’s defiance and erroneous politics were no doubt reprehensible, but he was dependably a sparkling carbon copy of most of African rulers. Gbagbo has obviously suffered the fate and embarrassment of one imprudently adamant and by his recalcitrance attracted vituperations of the wide-ranging publics in African and beyond. The indiscretions by the self-absorbed political class in Ivory Coast have always spiraled into deadly confrontations between north and south and effectively weaponing the dispositions of religious and tribal hostilities built over the years. The deteriorated situation then in Ivory Coast demanded cautious approach. For clement C. Chigbo, we were of the view that the belligerent language of forceful intervention in Ivory Coast bordered on idiocy in the high places, lack of critical foresight and objective perspective and above all, a profundity and pathetic lack of true appreciation of the facts on ground and the issues involved in this political impasse in Ivory coast.5 Gratitude to God at the terminals of the speculations on the practicable solutions something more calming resulted tempering the potentially explosive situation in Ivory Coast and returning relative peace even if comprehensive programmes of reconciliation were ineffective in assuaging all the folks thus the persisting animosity.
Robert Mugabe tenaciously held on in Zimbabwe after bruising and stifling every other political power contender. It is not an exaggeration to assert that Zimbabwe was deliberately ruined by Mugabe’s political egocentricity. For some commentators, Mugabe’s political demise was heralded by firing of his then vice Emerson Mnangagwa who was seen as an obstacle to the presidential ambitions of his wife Grace. The army capitalized the indiscretion and subtly deposed him. Mugabe relied preponderantly on army as he rampaged Zimbabwe. The hypothesis was that the army was infuriated by the prospects of handing the country over to madam Grace. But the decrepit Mugabe’s resistance to his ‘rebelling’ military was futile. Though the army considered ouster of the tyrant irreversible, they rejected description of their political action against the autocrat as a “coup and assured the safety of the first family. The military maintained that their action was targeted at criminals around Mugabe and persons believed to be behind the economic stress that Zimbabweans were facing”. Mugabe finally resigned November 21 compelled by mediation, threat of recall by Zanu-PF and impeachment processes by the parliament, mass protest calling for his departure and threats of intervention by the regional political bloc SADC. Sadly, Mugabe died yesterday September 6, 2019 at the age of 95. It is striking to observe that in spite of the long-term misrule, the despot was irreplaceable to a lot of Zimbabweans. This is neither because he has done well nor has any other value to add but because the ethnic cards he plays were magnetizing.
In Africa and in deed in many so called developing societies religion and ethnicity are tremendous electoral factors than competence. This accounts for the reasons why intolerably bad rulers keep returning to power with implausible landslide victories or forced the way back to power in extremely fraudulent electoral processes and continue to misrule devoid of consequences. It is becoming common knowledge that the combustible sectional cards in Africa’s politics have nothing to do with existence of the tribes and diverse religious orientations but in the structures and characters of the Africa’s political aristocrats. It is no longer plausible to blame the structural fragility of African states on imperial inputs. No, the contemporary Africa is the author and sustainer of her malaise. Fortunately, it is within her volition to edict valid transformation of the negating order.
For Onunaji ‘the deformed neo-colonial states which are dysfunctional in every aspects of the basic responsibility to the citizens are only potent in the service of the elite handlers.6 The unreformed neo-colonial states are for the handlers the guarantor of unfathomable wealth, power and influence. Therefore, to take possession of a state, no rule is too sacrosanct to breach, no consensus is binding enough and even the helpless population, in whose name the state purportedly exist is absolutely expendable.7
Jammeh, Paul Biya, late Mugabe, Joseph Kabila, Gbagbo and their defiant cohorts knew too well the deprivation and the sense of vulnerability that comes with the loss of power in Africa. The loss of power in Africa is beyond the period political sabbaticals of opposition parties in the west, who endure the loss of power without the vicissitude of vendetta and reprisals. Gbagbo and his clique like every other vanquished group in Africa know they are heading to a reprisal and absolutely intolerant government.8 The cruel beating, slapping and punching of Gbagbo on the streets of France by Ivoirians are specifically additional to the woes to the former president.
However, everything may not be appropriately right about the detestations and aspersions poured on the former dictator and the lack of sympathy from friends and foes in the international community that always give impression of a compassionate agency. This is remarkable. This detestation may be traced primarily to the character of mainstream international media. It is noted that ‘the tendentiousness of the reportage in the Ivorian crisis was not only ludicrous but indicative of the fact that truth of the election that ousted him was blatantly ignored and facts were skewed up and presented in a manner to serve a certain sinister unknown and ulterior motives. All these tended to suggest that there were well orchestrated conspiracy not to tell the truth but to inflame the nation.9 The hypothetical opportunity to inflame the nation was seen playing out in the will of the incumbent to hang on to power until it turned out shoddier. In addition, there is an intensifying tradition in the west of uncritical supports to opposition groups seeking liberal political environment. More support is garnered when a move for political change is directed at a ‘dictator’.
Dictators continually cling on illegitimate tools to legalise their suppressive regime and develop oligarchic institutions that prioritises their cleavages to power. It has become increasing evident that elections and reforms in some states are defensive and rationalizing strategies of popular dictators unwilling to step aside. As the popular Arab Spring political uprising was gradually absorbed giving way to transitory changes of strategy by individual national dictators, ‘the steps taken by Arab governments were not democratizing reforms, rather there were carefully circumscribed efforts designed precisely to head off the possibility of true democratization by alleviating popular dissatisfaction with the regimes. Some regimes, such as those in Morocco and Jordan, have managed to stay in place by persisting with such a strategy.10 The dictators have time-tested tactics of dealing with popular demands for change or democratic reforms. These rulers in the eyes of the western powers inexpediently squander the chances of inclusive or democratic politics at every election. It is noticeable that western media propaganda have rightly or wrongly supported and given every logistic to oppositions seeking displacement of ‘unjust’ administration.
We saw this role in Kenya between the former president Kibaki and opposition leader, Raila Odinga. It was with the backing of the western powers that government of national unity was formed in Kenya that gave opposition, a prime minister slot. The same was replicated in Zimbabwe between late Robert Mugabe and late Morgan Tshangari. Even the revolutionary uprising in the Arab world that targeted displacement of undemocratic governments endeared the western powers and has been applauded by the excited main western media. It was natural that Vladimir Putin accused the Europe and America of contributing to mounting oppositions against imposition of himself repeatedly against the interest of the greater Russian public. Since democratic dispensation in Russian, Putin has had the rare advantages of doing whatever he wishes with the power and politics of Russia. Putin caused mutations of the constitution to give himself automatic prime ministerial position immediately after he exhausted constitutionally approved two consecutive tenures as president. Later, he swapped position with the former president, Dmitry Mevdev. By this arrangement, Putin reoccupies the presidency and the president stepped aside into prime minster position, an arrangement opposition groups decried and vowed against. However, the opposition was impotent and incapable of halting the denigration of Russians.
All governments rest on some kind of mixture of coercion and consent, but democracies are unique in the degree to which their stability depends on the consent of a majority of those governed. Almost as a given, theories of democracy stress that democratic stability requires a widespread belief among both elites and masses that democracy is the best form of government for their society, and hence that the democratic regime is morally entitled to rule.11 The global trend today is glaringly anti-dictatorship, no matter how benevolent the junta is. People are more and more resolute to partake in determining the trend of their lives and shaping their future. This surely makes sense.12 By boldly confronting the tyrants without fear and any where irrespective of circumstances, Africans can demonstrate their commitment to culture of cleaner and more productive politics.
Advertisements
